Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[TwoSix]

To be honest, if we're getting rid of ASI on the basis that "PCs are outstanding, they break the norm, so a halfling warrior can be as stout and brawny as an orc warrior", then the same reasoning applies to luck. Why would an extraordinarily lucky orc couldn't exist if an extraordinarily strong halfling can? I understand your point is to maintain differences between races, but I don't think the "racial feats" would work unless open to all races.

I mean, you could certainly argue that, and I don't think you're wrong. It comes down to the fact that there's a spectrum of ways to have race/ancestry in a fantasy game, ranging from "race/ancestry is a narrative skin with no mechanics" to "my class is Dwarf". It's up the game designers to find the point on the spectrum that the most players can accept and the least amount of players strongly reject.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean, you could certainly argue that, and I don't think you're wrong. It comes down to the fact that there's a spectrum of ways to have race/ancestry in a fantasy game, ranging from "race/ancestry is a narrative skin with no mechanics" to "my class is Dwarf". It's up the game designers to find the point on the spectrum that the most players can accept and the least amount of players strongly reject.

To be more precise, it's up to the game designers to find the point on the spectrum that is most acceptable to me.

 

[Phoebasss]

Agreed on feeling different, not agreed on how it would be "just weaker." How do you think it would be just weaker?

Well currently the main combat difference between the two is a +1 roll bonus and 1 hp per level. The dwarf ranger should be better able to take a hit, maybe on a daily ability or per short rest, while the wood elf ranger could possibly gain some very limited form of cunning action for disengage? I want races to be distinct, but more than that they should be mechanically interesting. And stat changes just aren't that.

 

[Phoebasss]

I've said this before, but I'd really like to see examples of these racial features that make up for losing the ASIs while making races strongly distinct from each other. I'm sure it can be done, but I don't know how to do it.

Well, the ASIs should still exist but not tied to race imo, but I think I can give this a shot. Though balancing these is really more up to what human looks like under this system. Because that tends to exist as a catch-all middle ground race. At least non-variant human is supposed to.

Something on the level of half-orc's savage attacks seems about right to me. Give dwarf 1/per long rest reaction to resist damage, wood elf could have 1/short rest bonus action disengage or dodge, and gnome is pretty much most of the way there with minor illusion, so maybe something else on that theme? These would still lightly encourage certain playstyles obviously, but not to the extent that the current bonuses do. You might be slightly incentivized to have a dwarf frontliner, but a dwarf wizard can still make great use of a little extra beefiness.

 

[Cadence]

Well, the ASIs should still exist but not tied to race imo, but I think I can give this a shot.

What do specified ASIs (from anything) add that just giving a better standard array or more points for point buy doesn't?

 

[Phoebasss]

What do specified ASIs (from anything) add that just giving a better standard array or more points for point buy doesn't?

Well, for point buy it would let you shortcut the high cost of the top end values, and it has value to people who roll stats because it doesn't require redesigning the 4d6 drop lowest system. I don't actually know anyone who uses standard array, so idk.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well currently the main combat difference between the two is a +1 roll bonus and 1 hp per level. The dwarf ranger should be better able to take a hit, maybe on a daily ability or per short rest, while the wood elf ranger could possibly gain some very limited form of cunning action for disengage? I want races to be distinct, but more than that they should be mechanically interesting. And stat changes just aren't that.

Yes. As I noted above, racial ASIs don't actually drive any narrative changes. The claim is that they make the races more distinct, but they don't lead to any noticeably different gameplay.

Here's a thought experiment: imagine you're watching a game, and you don't know who is playing what race, all you can do is listen and observe. In which game are you more likely to figure out races, one with only racial ASIs and no other racial abilities, or one with only the abilities and no ASIs?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well currently the main combat difference between the two is a +1 roll bonus and 1 hp per level. The dwarf ranger should be better able to take a hit, maybe on a daily ability or per short rest, while the wood elf ranger could possibly gain some very limited form of cunning action for disengage? I want races to be distinct, but more than that they should be mechanically interesting. And stat changes just aren't that.

So, just to be clear, you're more envisioning racial traits that can be tailored to each class possibly?

 

[Charlaquin]

What do specified ASIs (from anything) add that just giving a better standard array or more points for point buy doesn't?

Easier to apply to rolled stats, I guess? I still like the idea of 4d6 drop lowest, 7 times, drop lowest, standard array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 32 point buy with a cap of 16 in place of ASIs, and plan to use it for my next game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Easier to apply to rolled stats, I guess? I still like the idea of 4d6 drop lowest, 7 times, drop lowest, standard array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 32 point buy with a cap of 16 in place of ASIs, and plan to use it for my next game.

What would the cost be for the 16? 11 (+2 over 15) or 12 (+3 over 15)?